Abraham and his descendants
This section still needs work.
Biblical narratives represent Abraham as an idealized sheikh (with
one important exception, Gen. xiv., see below). As the father of Isaac
and Ishmael, he is ultimately the common ancestor of the
Israelites and their nomadic fierce neighbours. As the father of
Midian, Sheba and other Arabian tribes (25:1-4), it seems
that some degree of kinship was felt by the Hebrews with the dwellers
of the more distant south, and it is characteristic of the genealogies
that the mothers (Sarah, Hagar and Keturah) are in the descending
scale as regards purity of blood.
Abraham is said to have come from Ur in Babylonia and Haran and
thence to Canaan. Late tradition supposed that the
migration was to escape Babylonian idolatry (Judith 5,
Jubilees 12; cf. Joshua 24:2), and knew of Abraham's miraculous
escape from death (an obscure reference to some act of deliverance in
Isaiah 29:22). The route along the banks of the Euphrates from
south to north was so frequently taken by migrating tribes that the
tradition has nothing improbable in itself, but the prominence given
in the older narratives to the view that Haran was the home gives this
the preference. It was thence that Jacob, the father of the
tribes of Israel, came and the route to Shechem and Bethel is
precisely the same in both. A twofold migration is doubtful, and,
from what is known of the situation in Palestine in the [[15th century
BC]], is extremely improbable.
Further, there is yet another parallel in the story of the conquest by
Joshua (q.v.), partly implied and partly actually detailed (cf. also
Joshua 8:9 with Gen. 12:8, 13:3), whence it would appear that too much
importance must not be laid upon any ethnological interpretation which
fails to account for the three versions. That similar traditional
elements have influenced them is not unlikely; but to recover the true
historical foundation is difficult. The invasion or immigration of
certain tribes from the east of the Jordan; the presence of
Aramaean blood among the Israelites; the origin of the sanctity of
venerable sites, -- these and other considerations may readily be
found to account for the traditions.
Noteworthy coincidences in the lives of Abraham and Isaac, noticed
above, point to the fluctuating state of traditions in the oral stage,
or suggest that Abraham's life has been built up by borrowing from the
common stock of popular lore. More original is the parting of Lot and
Abraham at Bethel. The district was the scene of contests between
Moab and the Hebrews (cf. perhaps Judges 3), and if this explains
part of the story, the physical configuration of the Dead Sea may
have led to the legend of the destruction of inhospitable and vicious
cities.
Different writers have regarded the life of Abraham differently. He
has been viewed as a chieftain of the Amorites, as the head of a
great Semitic migration from Mesopotamia; or, since Ur and
Haran were seats of Moon-worship, he has been identified with a
moon-god. From the character of the literary evidence and the locale
of the stories it has been held that Abraham was originally associated
with Hebron. The double name Abram/Abraham has even suggested that
two personages have been combined in the Biblical narrative; although
this does not explain the change from Sarai to Sarah. But it is
important to remember that the narratives are not contemporary, and
that the interesting discovery of the name Abi-ramu (Abram) on
Babylonian contracts of about 2000 BC does not prove the Abram of
the Old Testament to be an historical person, even as the fact that
there were "Amorites" in Babylonia at the same period does not make it
certain that the patriarch was one of their number. One remarkable
chapter associates Abraham with kings of Elam and the east
(Genesis 14). No longer a peaceful sheikh but a warrior with a small
army of 318 followers, he overthrows a combination of powerful
monarchs who have ravaged the land. The genuineness of the narrative
has been strenuously maintained, although upon insufficient grounds.
"It is generally recognized that this chapter holds quite an isolated
place in the Pentateuchal history; it is the only passage which
presents Abraham in the character of a warrior, and connects him with
historical names and political movements, and there are no clear marks
by which it can be assigned to any one of the documents of which
Genesis is made up. Thus, while one school of interpreters finds in
the chapter the earliest fragment of the political history of western
Asia, some even holding with Ewald
that the narrative is probably based on old Canaanite records, other
critics, as Noldeke, regard the whole as
unhistorical and comparatively late in origin. On the latter view,
which finds its main support 1n the intrinsic difficulties of the
narrative, it is scarcely possible to avoid the conclusion that the
chapter is one of the latest additions to the Pentateuch (Wellhausen and many others)."
On the assumption that a recollection of some invasion in remote days
may have been current, considerable interest is attached to the names.
Of these, Amraphel, king of Shinar (i.e. Babylonia, Genesis 10:10),
has been identified with Hammurabi, one of the greatest of the
Babylonian kings (c. 2000 B.C.), and since he claims to have ruled as
far west as the Mediterranean Sea, the equation has found considerable
favour. Apart from chronological difficulties, the identification of
the king and his country is far from certain, and at the most can only
be regarded as possible. Arioch, king of Ellasar, has been connected
with Eriaku of Larsa--the reading has been questioned---a contemporary
with Hammurabi. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, bears what is doubtless a
genuine Elamite name. Finally, the name of Tid'al, king of Goiim, may
be identical with a certain Tudhulu the son of Gazza, a warrior, but
apparently not a king, who is mentioned in a Babylonian inscription,
and Goiim may stand for Gutim, the Guti being a people who lived to
the east of Kurdistan. Nevertheless, there is as yet no monumental
evidence in favour of the genuineness of the story, and at the most it
can only be said that the author (of whatever date) has derived his
names from a trustworthy source, and in representing an invasion of
Palestine by Babylonian overlords has given expression to a possible
situation. The improbabilities and internal difficulties of the
narrative remain untouched, only the bare outlines may very well be
historical. If, as most critics agree, it is a historical romance
(cf., e.g., the book of Judith), it is possible that a writer,
preferably one who lived in the post-exilic age and was acquainted
with Babylonian history, desired to enhance the greatness of Abraham
by exhibiting his military success against the monarchs of the Tigris
and Euphrates, the high esteem he enjoyed in Palestine and his lofty
character as displayed in his interview with Melchizedek.
Modern Views of Abraham
This section could be expanded.
The importance of Abraham to three major world religions has
understandably led to considerable modern debate. Here is an
excellent example:
May I suggest a scholarly addition? There is considerable debate among scholars of the TaNaKh, or Old Testament, as to whether Abraham was a true monotheist (believer in one God).
Abraham's declaration of fealty was to "pray only to the god of his fathers". "God of his fathers" was a term used by many peoples at the time, and referred to many Gods, such as Yahweh (Jehovah), Ba'al, and so on. Technically, his statement that he would pray to only this god did not preclude belief in the existence of other deities, which would make Abraham a monolatrist (a person who believes in many deities, but only prays to one).
However, the religious of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all consider Abraham to be the first monotheist, and Jews and Muslims both claim Abraham as "founding patriarch" of their faiths."
Thank you, Tara El Masry
It should be noted that some of the above should be taken cum grano salis. For example, far from all of Christianity considering Abraham the first monotheist, some argue that they are not aware any Christian group that believes this. (Some liberals will all tell you Abraham was not a monotheist, and some conservatives will all tell you that the first monotheist was Adam.) It is certainly true, however, that there has come to be considerable debate on this increasingly controversial topic, which demonstrates the epistemological chasm between conservatives and liberals within Christianity.
Sources:
See also Abrahamic religions, Abraham's bosom.